Some questions for you guys about Pernell Whitaker

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Illmatic

When I think ATG jabs, I think boxers who can debilitate opponents with it.

Why is it limited to that? Certain guys with great power in their jabs didn't have the ability to pump them out as often, use them as accurately or with as much variety as a guy like Whitaker. They hold the edge in power, he holds the edge in every other category. So why is his not considered a great jab and their's is? It really is the same as if you considered Whitaker below the rank of ATG due to his lack of power. Makes no sense.

Also, Whitaker's jab could be debilitating in a sense that he'd lessen the opponent's workrate and rhythm with it.

[Sweet Pea]

Some of his best work with the jab. Watch how he embarasses and shuts Haugen down with it on several occasions, eventually causing him to completely shell up (though a lot of it is due to a variety of other punches as well):

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Illmatic]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

Why is it limited to that? Certain guys with great power in their jabs didn't have the ability to pump them out as often, use them as accurately or with as much variety as a guy like Whitaker. They hold the edge in power, he holds the edge in every other category. So why is his not considered a great jab and their's is? It really is the same as if you considered Whitaker below the rank of ATG due to his lack of power. Makes no sense.

Also, Whitaker's jab could be debilitating in a sense that he'd lessen the opponent's workrate and rhythm with it.

I said he had a great jab, just not one of the greatest ever, b/c I would personally consider a fighter that can debilitate an opponent with a jab as more effective than one who utilizes a variety.

A parallel illustration: The NO Saints have one of the best quarterbacks in the league, but not the best team. Whitaker doesn't have one of the absolute best jabs ever, but is one of the absolute greatest fighters ever.

There was no slight made on Whitaker, but you're deturbed b/c I value other fighter's jabs higher than I would Whitaker. He's not the greatest at everything, just the greatest lightweight of all time, which I used to think was a pretty damn good accomplishment.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Illmatic

I said he had a great jab, just not one of the greatest ever, b/c I would personally consider a fighter that can debilitate an opponent with a jab as more effective than one who utilizes a variety.

A parallel illustration: The NO Saints have one of the best quarterbacks in the league, but not the best team. Whitaker doesn't have one of the absolute best jabs ever, but is one of the absolute greatest fighters ever.

There was no slight made on Whitaker, but you're deturbed b/c I value other fighter's jabs higher than I would Whitaker. He's not the greatest at everything, just the greatest lightweight of all time, which I used to think was a pretty damn good accomplishment.

His jab was his best weapon, I don't see how you can consider him one of the greatest ever without taking into account how effective his main weapon was. It has nothing to do with your valueing any other fighter's jab over Whitaker's, it had originally to do with your flat out incorrect description of it as a baiter. Then you go on to say that you value a powerful jab over a jab with variety and skill, regardless of the comparative effectiveness of the two. That makes no sense. What it seems to come down to is a difference of opinion. You prefer powerful jabs, most people prefer jabs with variety and skill. Whitaker's jab was more efficient than a guy like Quartey's or Liston's, regardless of whether or not it was as debilitating (though it could also be, as I've explained).

[Illmatic]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

His jab was his best weapon, I don't see how you can consider him one of the greatest ever without taking into account how effective his main weapon was. It has nothing to do with your valueing any other fighter's jab over Whitaker's, it had originally to do with your flat out incorrect description of it as a baiter. Then you go on to say that you value a powerful jab over a jab with variety and skill, regardless of the comparative effectiveness of the two. That makes no sense. What it seems to come down to is a difference of opinion. You prefer powerful jabs, most people prefer jabs with variety and skill. Whitaker's jab was more efficient than a guy like Quartey's or Liston's, regardless of whether or not it was as debilitating (though it could also be, as I've explained).

Youre just being silly. I never said it was always a baiter, but he did use it as a baiter sometimes. It's a testament to his versatility. And I've said several times that he's one of the greatest ever, I just said that his jab wasn't one of the absolute greatest of all time. You're blinded by love right now.

[Sweet Pea]

Originally Posted by Illmatic

Youre just being silly. I never said it was always a baiter, but he did use it as a baiter sometimes. It's a testament to his versatility. And I've said several times that he's one of the greatest ever, I just said that his jab wasn't one of the absolute greatest of all time. You're blinded by love right now.

It has nothing to do with that. Stop bringing other factors into it to try to pin something on me. You're obviously upset that I pointed out the glaring inconsistency in your post, but let's move on.

We're talking about his jab, nothing more. Why does it not rate among the best of all time just because it didn't have the power of other jabs like that of Quartey or Liston? It was more accurate and versatile than either, and just as efficient if not moreso overall. Given his style, his jab was just as effective if not moreso than either of them. So why does his jab not rate alongside either of them? If you say power we'll go in circles again, as it makes no sense for you to rate him among the best ever despite his lack of power, but not do the same for his jab.

[Illmatic]

Originally Posted by Sweet Pea

It has nothing to do with that. Stop bringing other factors into it to try to pin something on me. You're obviously upset that I pointed out the glaring inconsistency in your post, but let's move on.

We're talking about his jab, nothing more. Why does it not rate among the best of all time just because it didn't have the power of other jabs like that of Quartey or Liston? It was more accurate and versatile than either, and just as efficient if not moreso overall. Given his style, his jab was just as effective if not moreso than either of them. So why does his jab not rate alongside either of them? If you say power we'll go in circles again, as it makes no sense for you to rate him among the best ever despite his lack of power, but not do the same for his jab.

Please, my message has been the same throughout. I'll save my time and refer you to my previous posts.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

2What does composite puncher mean? As in ability to throw a lot of diverse punches? He is one of the most offensively creative fighters ever. He turns jabs into hooks, hooks into uppercuts and straight punches into hooks. Very fluid and can throw great combinations though they weren't always his foundation.

Does composite mean ability to interweave the use of both hands? Well, he's actually ambidextrous, let's just leave it at that.

I tend to want to tag "puncher" with this other word because if you ask about great punchers, you tend to hear about Julian Jackson and Earnie Shavers - super-charged-power-punchers both, but not what i'm after - composite puncher is a puncher taking into account everything associated with punching and combination punching. Speed, timing, making angles, power, positioning, balance, all of it. You've actually given me a very good answer without knowing this...

3 - Do you rate him as a bodypuncher?

As far as technique and variety goes, up with the best of the best. He beat Julio Cesar Chavez to the body. Is there any greater compliment for a body puncher?

He doesn't have the power that a lot of body punchers do, or the strength to sustain an attack to the body for a whole fight against a bull like fighter like Chavez, but when he chooses to reside there, he hangs with ANYBODY.

Yeah, I agree. And i'm new. Don't know how, but up until this week i've missed what a great body puncher he is. I think you said it all, and I agree with every word. He's a wonderful body puncher...I actually think I have been guilty of underating this fighter.

Sneakiest jab of all time

Can you expand upon this, and which fighters do you think are comparable? I feel Jones has a sneaky jab when he chose to employ it.

probably favour Armstrong slightly as well.

How do you see this one going? Whitaker gets out-monstered down the stretch?


Good post by the way.

[sweet_scientist]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I tend to want to tag "puncher" with this other word because if you ask about great punchers, you tend to hear about Julian Jackson and Earnie Shavers - super-charged-power-punchers both, but not what i'm after - composite puncher is a puncher taking into account everything associated with punching and combination punching. Speed, timing, making angles, power, positioning, balance, all of it. You've actually given me a very good answer without knowing this...

Ah cool. Well you know where I stand on Pea with the power issue, but other than his lack of power he was offensively very expansive, as i suggested above.

Yeah, I agree. And i'm new. Don't know how, but up until this week i've missed what a great body puncher he is. I think you said it all, and I agree with every word. He's a wonderful body puncher...I actually think I have been guilty of underating this fighter.

You rate him just fine, but it's true, he does have a great game to the body. Part of the reason his back hardly touched the ropes against Chavez and someone like Camacho's back didn't leave the ropes against Chavez was because Whitaker had a top inside game and was able to match Chavez there without cowering backwards anytime Julio decided to go to the body. Camacho had fast hands yes, but he didn't have an inside game near educated enough to match Chavez. Mind you he didn't have the defense either and he was past his best, but even in his prime, I still think Chavez would work Hector over because he lacked fundamentals on the inside. All he could do was hug and hope to reset.

Ultimately I think it was Whitaker's offensive diversity, in being able to hang with Chavez in Chavez's pet areas, that won him the fight.

Can you expand upon this, and which fighters do you think are comparable? I feel Jones has a sneaky jab when he chose to employ it.

Sure.

You see, you have jabbers like Holmes and Quartey who have physically imposing jabs and they use them like ram rods. You know they are going to stick them out with speed and force, and even if they are going to throw them in a predictable manner, half their effectiveness is that you simply don't want to be hit with them because they are very debilitating. So even if they are somewhat predictable, being hit a small percentage of them keeps fighters on their toes and weary. Whatsmore it's the very speed of the shots that beats a fighter, not the variety or timing with which they throw the jab.

Whitaker didn't really have a ramrod jab and it wasn't all that quick either. The secret to his success with the jab was the variety with which he could throw it and his timing.

His variety was in part due to his creativeness and in part due to great flexibility with the upper body. He could double and triple up on it whilst on the retreat or on attack, throw it over someone's guard, under someone's guard and to the body with ease. His flexibility in the upper body allowed him to move quickly to angles best suited to land the jab.

His timing was key as well. He anticipated his opponents well and seemed to know where they would move before they did, and he'd often have the jab there waiting for them.

The three fighters that stand out to me as having similar qualities with the jab are Jim Driscoll, Benny Leonard and Barney Ross, though they created their angles with the use of quick feet more than upper body elasticity.

Jones jab certainly was sneaky though, but it was more of an entree rather than a main course in his menu.

How do you see this one going? Whitaker gets out-monstered down the stretch?


Good post by the way.

Yeah, I kind of suspect that Armstrong will simply not stop throwing punches and Whitaker will wilt a little from having to do all that dodging and dipping and swivveling. If you look at Whitaker's fight with Azumah Nelson, Nelson manages in the second half of the fight to make Whitaker feel quite uncomfortable with his pressure and Whitaker does have a few moments where he looks vulnerable. Nelson simply had no answer in the first half of the fight though, and didn't establish anything to the body and so he couldn't take advantage even when he had some moments in the second half of the fight. I think Armstrong will be more educated, get in his body shots when losing rounds on mass early on and slowly but surely start coming on.

At the end of the day though, if I saw the bout and Whitaker won it, I wouldn't be all that surprised. Whitaker is that good, you can't write him off, even against the very elite of all time.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

Part of the reason his back hardly touched the ropes against Chavez and someone like Camacho's back didn't leave the ropes against Chavez was because Whitaker had a top inside game and was able to match Chavez there without cowering backwards anytime Julio decided to go to the body. Camacho had fast hands yes, but he didn't have an inside game near educated enough to match Chavez. Mind you he didn't have the defense either and he was past his best, but even in his prime, I still think Chavez would work Hector over because he lacked fundamentals on the inside. All he could do was hug and hope to reset.

Wonderful observation. I've really enjoyed your thoughts on Whitaker. It's nice to talk to such a knowledgable poster about a fighter I'm becoming more interested in. I can feel you putting the peices together for me in relation to the footage i've watched this week.

On another subject we spoke briefly about your half-planned top 200 and Macho Man's place on the list. Hypothetically, where do you think the cut off point for true greatness comes on your list? That is, where, on a top 100 (or 200) do you think you would be looking at names of wonderful, cracking fighters but no longer truly great ones?

[DanePugilist]

I remember when the technical sound dane, Gert Bo Jacobsen faced Greg Haugen. Everyone thought it would be an easy match, but Greg without being a great boxer, shut out Gert, and beat him soundly, and by KO as far as I can remember.

[jyuza]

Originally Posted by sweet_scientist

Ah cool. Well you know where I stand on Pea with the power issue, but other than his lack of power he was offensively very expansive, as i suggested above.


You rate him just fine, but it's true, he does have a great game to the body. Part of the reason his back hardly touched the ropes against Chavez and someone like Camacho's back didn't leave the ropes against Chavez was because Whitaker had a top inside game and was able to match Chavez there without cowering backwards anytime Julio decided to go to the body. Camacho had fast hands yes, but he didn't have an inside game near educated enough to match Chavez. Mind you he didn't have the defense either and he was past his best, but even in his prime, I still think Chavez would work Hector over because he lacked fundamentals on the inside. All he could do was hug and hope to reset.

Ultimately I think it was Whitaker's offensive diversity, in being able to hang with Chavez in Chavez's pet areas, that won him the fight.


Sure.

You see, you have jabbers like Holmes and Quartey who have physically imposing jabs and they use them like ram rods. You know they are going to stick them out with speed and force, and even if they are going to throw them in a predictable manner, half their effectiveness is that you simply don't want to be hit with them because they are very debilitating. So even if they are somewhat predictable, being hit a small percentage of them keeps fighters on their toes and weary. Whatsmore it's the very speed of the shots that beats a fighter, not the variety or timing with which they throw the jab.

Whitaker didn't really have a ramrod jab and it wasn't all that quick either. The secret to his success with the jab was the variety with which he could throw it and his timing.

His variety was in part due to his creativeness and in part due to great flexibility with the upper body. He could double and triple up on it whilst on the retreat or on attack, throw it over someone's guard, under someone's guard and to the body with ease. His flexibility in the upper body allowed him to move quickly to angles best suited to land the jab.

His timing was key as well. He anticipated his opponents well and seemed to know where they would move before they did, and he'd often have the jab there waiting for them.

The three fighters that stand out to me as having similar qualities with the jab are Jim Driscoll, Benny Leonard and Barney Ross, though they created their angles with the use of quick feet more than upper body elasticity.

Jones jab certainly was sneaky though, but it was more of an entree rather than a main course in his menu.


Yeah, I kind of suspect that Armstrong will simply not stop throwing punches and Whitaker will wilt a little from having to do all that dodging and dipping and swivveling. If you look at Whitaker's fight with Azumah Nelson, Nelson manages in the second half of the fight to make Whitaker feel quite uncomfortable with his pressure and Whitaker does have a few moments where he looks vulnerable. Nelson simply had no answer in the first half of the fight though, and didn't establish anything to the body and so he couldn't take advantage even when he had some moments in the second half of the fight. I think Armstrong will be more educated, get in his body shots when losing rounds on mass early on and slowly but surely start coming on.

At the end of the day though, if I saw the bout and Whitaker won it, I wouldn't be all that surprised. Whitaker is that good, you can't write him off, even against the very elite of all time.

Amazing post as expected. It is good to see my fellows from the classic section.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by jyuza

Amazing post as expected. It is good to see my fellows from the classic section.

Hi bud.

[kg0208]

Given the analysis of the information, which BTW is very accurate, do we underrate Whitaker? I have him in my top 15 fighters....but should he be a consensus top 10 guy?

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by kg0208

Given the analysis of the information, which BTW is very accurate, do we underrate Whitaker? I have him in my top 15 fighters....but should he be a consensus top 10 guy?

I have him t #20...I don't think you can have him in the ten...can you make a case for his being above Ali?